Difference between revisions of "Consensus science"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (updated) |
m (Reverted edits by ConservaTroll (Talk) to last version by Aschlafly) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | Science writer [[Michael Crichton]] said: | |
| + | |||
| + | *"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." [http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1835.htm] | ||
| + | [[category:science]] | ||
Revision as of 13:44, October 15, 2008
Science writer Michael Crichton said:
- "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
- "Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
- "Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." [1]